FOR A DEMOCRATIC ANTI-WAR COALITION

Proposals to the Stop the War Coalition Meeting 2 October

From ARROW (Active Resistance to the Roots of War)

Last Tuesday, the Stop the War Coalition held its first meeting at Friends House. There was a great deal of unhappiness in the meeting at the undemocratic way the coalition's platform was driven through and the members of the Committee were imposed on the meeting. Without a solid democratic foundation, we cannot build a strong, broad-based anti-war movement.

ARROW is a nonviolent direct action affinity group. Our
priority is action, not words. But we are so concerned at the way this coalition is heading, we are proposing that there is proper debate and proper voting on (a) who chairs the meeting, (b) what the platform of the coalition is, and (c) who is on the committee.

We are asking the current Chair, editor of the SWP magazine Socialist Review, to allow votes on these topics (proposals overleaf). If votes are allowed on all three topics, ARROW will not form a break away network, whatever the outcome of those votes.

This is very much what we would like to happen. We value the unity of the anti-war movement. The coalition has already lost a lot of people because of the way the last meeting was run. Our aim is to make the coalition and the anti-war movement stronger.

NEW NETWORK
However, if the coalition is not going to be run democratically, and if votes are not allowed on all three proposals, ARROW will call for those who support our six core principles (see overleaf) and who want to build a democratic anti-war movement to meet with us at 7.30pm next Tues. 9 Oct. - venue to be announced at Downing St.
vigil 6pm that day, and by email on the Aftermath list (pto for details). People who support this new anti-war initiative, which we hope will not be needed, can gather with ARROW outside Friends House tonight to prepare for the 9 Oct. meeting.


ARROW PROPOSALS TO COALITION MEETING

These fundamental decisions should take less than 30 min. altogether.

1) That there be a brief election for chair of this meeting, with each candidate speaking for one minute each, and a decision by a show of hands (one teller each from ARROW and the SWP).

2) That there be a short debate (two speakers for and against - each having two minutes) and a vote on whether to confirm the present platform of the coalition, or to adopt the ARROW six principles.

3) That there be a short debate (three speakers for and against - each having two minutes) and separate votes on the following proposals:

(a) That there be an open election for members of the committee at the next meeting on 9 Oct.; (b) Each candidate has to be nominated in advance by an anti-war organisation (local or national); (c) Each candidate has to speak before the meeting on 9 Oct. for two minutes on their outlook and experience, and can be questioned by the meeting; (d) Sponsors of the Committee, nominated by an anti-war organisation, may be voted onto the Committee without requiring their presence at a meeting; (e) that
the current interim Committee be dissolved pending the election.


ARROW'S SIX CORE PRINCIPLES FOR CO-OPERATION

(Minor amendments to be considered at next meeting)

1) We wholeheartedly condemn the terrorist atrocities in New York and Washington DC. Nothing can justify these terrible crimes.

2) We also condemn the idea of taking revenge for these deaths by military retaliation against Afghanistan, Iraq and/or other countries.

3) We believe that the United States and Britain should proceed on the basis of international law, following the UN Charter, and working through the normal channels of extradition law, to bring the perpetrators of the atrocities to justice.

4) We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Muslim communities in Britain, and demand an end to anti-Muslim attacks and prejudice.

5) We reject the erosion of our civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism. We cannot defend freedom by destroying it.

6) As a network, we are committed to campaigning solely by nonviolent means.

ARROW (Active Resistance to the Roots of War), c/o NVRN, 162 Holloway Rd,London N7 8DQ. 020 7606 2302 / 0845 458 9571 (local)

I should point out that I have nothing to do with Arrow (although fully support their work); I'm not sure they'd agree with my report of the meeting, so please don't read it as sour grapes on their part.

Prior to wars pacifists emerge to preach non-violence, mainly to the oppressed, not the oppressors. The Greens in Germany are running the Foreign Affairs Ministry, in Britain they are in alliance with the SWP... Both of them support NATO expansion into Eastern Europe so why the pretence of being anti-war? Only revolution can stop war!

In response to the comrade who says the Greens support "the war" - this is not the case - the Grunen in Germany are very divided on the issue with the Green Foreign minister under strong pressure from the grass roots, as he was during the Balkans conflict where he was mobbed on a special conference platform. The english/welsh Greens have written to Fischer to express their strong disagreement with his Blairite position. Neither are the British Greens in "alliance" with the SWP. They co-sponsored the demo in Brighton, but so did a lot of other non SWP groups. The Green Party of England and Wales is (unlike the SWP) a wholly democratic organisation representing a broad range of currents - libertarian socialists, "deep ecologists", "green Socialists", William Morrisites, ex-Solidarity types, Quakers, Pagans, feminists,anarcho pacifists etc. Some London based Socialist elements in the Party are keen on co-operating with the Socialist Alliance - this is due to their perspective in an area where the SWP/SA are a significant force. Viewed from the provinces this is seen as unecessary pandering to a sect which is of less significance than the GP itself.

Chris Nineham is a Central Ccommittee member of the SWP, so by putting him forward as the Globalise Resistance rep on the steering committee of the Stop the War coalotion the SWP have ensure they can control it. Mike Marqusee has near identical politics to the SWP and won't be differing from them, and the SWP run the Socialist Allliance. The SWP are very active, committed and put on a great anti-war rally. But they just have to control everything they're involved in. The reason they stopped any debate, let alone a vote, on the excellent ARROW position is that it threatens their control. Until the SWP learn coalition-building is very different from running a front there will be far more suspicious of them - and this goes a lot broader than anarchists - than are impressed by their undoubted activist commitment.

The main argument that took place in the meeting was not about SWP control. It was about the principles that the coalition should adopt. ARROW wanted their own organisations principles to be adopted i.e. you have to sign up to what they think to join the coalition. This would have narrowed down the campaign from the start. Many people don't trust 'International Law' or the UN seeing both as manipulated by the big powers. Why should they have to agree with ARROWs point 3 to join an anti-war coalition.

Many support the Palestinian Intifada or believe in the right of self-defense in certain circumstances why should they have to sign up to non-violence as an absolute principle.

The coalition principles that were adopted don't stop anybody from arguing their position or organising their own actions. They are aimed at bringing together the maximum numbers of people around the simple slogan of 'stop the war'. They are inclusive in that sense. I feel ARROW (with genuine intentions) think that the only way to build a coalition is on the basis of putting forward some (relatively) right-wing positions.